Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1954

Vol. 147 No. 1

Local Government Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. This is essentially a Committee Stage Bill. For this reason, I thought it best to provide Deputies with an Explanatory Memorandum in which every provision in the Bill is explained separately. I feel that some explanation is necessary for the fact that the Bill involves so much legislation by reference. Legislalation by reference is something which I, speaking both as a lawyer and as Minister for Local Government, deplore. I find, however, that if legislation by reference were to be avoided, the Bill would be inordinately long and, moreover, would not gain in simplicity what it would lose in brevity. The Bill is, however, a step towards the consolidation of local government law, which is so badly needed and so long overdue. The first step necessary towards consolidation was the enactment of the Local Government (Repeal of Enactments) Act, 1950, which repealed a large number of obsolete enactments and enabled the text book on local government law, which it is hoped will be published this year, to be confined to more or less manageable size. Consolidation of the general local government law, which will be a lengthy and complicated job, is proceeding and preliminary heads of a consolidated measure are in the hands of the Statute Law Reform and Consolidation Office. In the meantime, many reforms and improvements of the law cannot wait for the general overhaul of the law which consolidation will necessitate and are included in this Bill.

I do not propose to go into its provisions in the same detail as in the Explanatory Memorandum. I will take each part separately and deal with the more important provisions in a general way.

Part I is concerned with definitions and does not call for any comment.

Part II deals with establishment matters. It has two chapters. The first deals with offices and employments generally and is largely a series of amendments to Part II of the 1941 Act, and Part III of the 1946 Act. The second chapter deals with the amendment of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926.

In the first chapter, perhaps the most important section is Section 25 which provides a scheme of conciliation for servants of local authorities who may appeal to the elected members against a decision affecting their remuneration, duties or conditions of service. There is an obligation on the elected members to refer the appeal for consideration to an advisory committee to be set up under Section 59 of the Bill. An advisory committee under that section may include persons who are not members of the local authority. This will enable representatives of the servants concerned to be appointed on these committees so that their case may be properly pleaded. The local authority when they have considered the advice of the advisory committee may decide the appeal. Their decision is subject to confirmation by the appropriate Minister where it relates to a matter of remuneration.

If the local authority concerned is not a rating authority, their decision must be approved by the rating authorities who defray the expenses of the local authority. This is reasonable because it is the rating authorities who meet the cost of any wage increases.

It will be recalled that the 12 point programme of the Government includes the provision for employees of local authorities of a scheme of conciliation and arbitration. Section 25 will fulfil that programme in so far as local conciliation is concerned. The question of providing by legislation or otherwise for a scheme of arbitration for local authority employees is at present under consideration.

Another important provision in this chapter is Section 21 which modifies the provisions of Section 70 of the 1925 Act. That section prohibits any person from being employed by any local authority while he is or was within 12 months after he has ceased to be a member of the local authority or any local authority in the same or in an adjoining county or county borough. The provisions of this section have been considered to be too harsh in so far as minor employment by a local authority is concerned. Section 21 will provide that the disqualification of a person from employment as a minor officer or servant will operate only in respect of membership of a local authority by which he is employed. There is an exception to ensure that membership of advisory and visiting committees will not of itself involve disqualification from employment.

The only other provision in this chapter to which I ought to draw special attention is Section 24. This section and the Second Schedule will clarify the position in regard to the power of the appropriate Minister to make age limit Orders. It was considered that under existing law, age limit Orders could be made applying only to officers who on compulsory retirement would be entitled to a pension.

There was some doubt about this and it is now proposed to re-state the law and to limit the powers of the Ministers accordingly. Doubts have also been raised as to the validity of age limit Orders in relation to managers, in view of the terms of the Management Acts which provide that a manager shall hold office until he dies, resigns or is removed from office. Section 24 and Second Schedule will now make it clear that age limit Orders will apply notwithstanding any statutory tenure that an officer may possess under any other enactment.

Chapter II will deal with amendments of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926.

Section 27 will exclude certain types of offices from the scope of the Act. These are temporary offices; part-time offices as engineer or surveyor under the council of an urban district or the commissioners of a town; and technical offices, such as that of radiographer which are relatively junior. The removal of these offices from the scope of the 1926 Act will facilitate administration and will enable local authorities to fill these posts more speedily.

Section 28 will remove a source of inconvenience to local authorities by imposing a time limit of three months within which persons recommended for appointment by the Local Appointments Commissioners must take up duty on pain of losing their posts.

Section 31 which is the only other section to which I need refer will enable the commissioners to compile panels of qualified persons from which the needs of a number of local authorities can be met. This provision should help considerably to speed up the making of appointments and will also faciliate candidates in that they will not be required to pay an entrance fee for every particular post for which they apply.

Part III of the Bill contains a number of minor amendments of the law and a few more significant provisions.

Section 32 will enable a road authority to acquire land for quarries compulsorily, if necessary. At present there is a doubt as to whether a road authority can acquire land for this purpose otherwise than by agreement.

Section 37 makes a number of changes in the law on traffic signs, at present contained in Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1946. It has not been found possible to make suitable regulations under that section, but it is hoped when the more flexible provisions of Section 37 of the Bill become law, to make appropriate regulations regarding the major categories of traffic signs. It is highly desirable to get uniformity in the matter of traffic signs, especially the more important ones, and the regulations should secure that end. In the meantime, a review has been undertaken in my Department of the whole question of traffic signs, including their shape, size, colour, reflecting qualities, and so on, so that when the regulations are made, they should make the best provision possible.

With the growth in traffic, it becomes necessary to improve the sign-posting system and to ensure that road-side signs which would confuse road users are not permitted. In sub-section (3) of Section 37 therefore, it is to be made an offence to provide any sign, device, notice or light capable of being confused with or obscuring a traffic sign. This is based on a recent international convention, which we hope to adhere to in the near future.

Section 38 enables local authorities to appoint traffic wardens to shepherd school children across the road at busy crossing places. Dublin Corporation some time ago requested that steps be taken to enable them to appoint such wardens. In the city, school hours coincide with peak morning and mid-day traffic, and it will be of help both to the school children and to vehicle users if the children are guided across the street in orderly groups.

The Garda Síochána are not in a position to have police officers available at all necessary times at the places where school children cross, hence the need for these "traffic wardens". The powers requested by Dublin Corporation are being made available to local authorities generally, in case others wish to follow their example. It will be noted that any arrangements made by a local authority under the section are to be subject to the consent of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, who, it is understood, will assist in ensuring that wardens are properly instructed.

The Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909, was passed at a time when motoring was in its infancy and tourism had not reached its present importance in the balance of payments. It is only to be expected that it does not fully meet modern conditions. The Act had two chief objects: first, to facilitate Irish motorists going abroad and, second, to facilitate foreign motorists visiting Ireland. It is in regard to this second object that it needs improvement. Orders can be made under it only to implement formal conventions whereas it might be desirable from time to time to give effect to informal agreements or even to take unilateral action. Again, it does not cover tourists who wish to drive Irish cars as distinct from tourists importing their own cars. Section 39 of the Bill which is designed to replace the Act should give ample power to make whatever arrangements are considered necessary in the matter of driving licences for foreign visitors and the regulations applicable to their vehicles.

An important matter is dealt with in sub-section (1) of Section 41. Navigation rights were involved in a number of bridge projects considered recently, and doubt was raised as to whether a bridge Order could safely be made providing for the construction of a bridge which would curtail even to the slightest extent any right of navigation, even where the right had not been exercised for many years.

Section 41 therefore provides that a bridge Order given in such a case may be carried into effect. Such a power will, of course, be subject to the safeguards embodied in the Local Government Act, 1946, viz., the ventilation of the whole question at a local inquiry and the requirement of the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is the responsible Minister in navigation matters. Section 41 of the Bill provides for compensation in respect of any private right of navigation affected.

Section 42 of the Bill, which enables a border county to adopt a scheme for the construction or maintenance of a cross-border bridge, follows generally the lines of a similar provision in an Act in force in the Six Counties. Under the section Donegal County Council will be able to proceed with a scheme for the replacement of Lifford Bridge on which Tyrone County Council and themselves have agreed.

I now come to Part IV of the Bill which deals with local finance. Perhaps the most important provision in this part is Section 51 which deals with the question of levying the county demand. Complaints have been made over a long period about the present method of calculating the amounts to be contributed towards county expenses by boroughs and urban districts. This method is briefly apportionment on a valuation basis, but as not all the valuations taken into account are productive, and lack of productivity is more prevalent in urban than in rural districts, there have been well-founded complaints that an undue share of common charges tends to fall on urban ratepayers. The provisions of Section 51 will meet these complaints. In future county-at-large charges will be shared between the county health district and the urbans in proportion to the net produce of a rate of 1d. in the pound in each area. This figure can be ascertained from the rate accounts of each local authority and the new method of assessment should not involve any complexity. Urban councils and county councils will get full credit for non-productive ratings, irrecoverable rates and so on in the assessment of their shares of county-at-large charges.

Section 50 is another section which I think calls for some comment. This section provides that where a person who is retained by a public body in any professional, advisory or consultative capacity certifies any sum as being payable from the funds of the public body and such sum is paid, he shall in so far as the payment certified by him is concerned be an officer for the purposes of Section 20 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, which deals with the making of charges by auditors. I want to make it clear that this section will not give the auditor any power to question professional advice given by a consultant. The auditor's powers will be confined to querying any sum paid on the basis of a certificate issued by a consultant.

Part V of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters. There are four sections in this part on which I would like to comment. The first is Section 53. Under the Local Government Act, 1941, county councils have power to provide a community or parish hall, but they have no power to make a contribution towards the erection of such a hall by a local committee or parish council. It is felt that the power given in Section 53 to contribute would, by fostering local initiative and also by freeing the county councils from the burden of providing and managing the hall, be much more acceptable to county councils.

Section 54 will enable sanitary authorities to make grants to societies, clubs and other bodies providing or proposing to provide swimming facilities. This section will, I am sure, be welcomed by swimming clubs which are not usually in a position to incur the heavy capital expenditure involved in providing swimming pools and also by local authorities because it will relieve them of the expense of managing and maintaining swimming pools as well as part of the capital cost of providing them.

The corporations of the four county boroughs can legally spend money on the decoration of streets on occasions of public rejoicing and other appropriate occasions. Section 55 of the Bill will extend this power to all urban authorities and town commissioners. A limit of 3d. in the pound on the rateable valuation of their areas is imposed. I may mention that many local authorities have already incurred expenditure on Tostal decorations in anticipation of the enactment of this section.

The only other section in this part which I would like to draw attention to is Section 59. It is the section to which I have already referred in connection with appeals by servants. It enables local authorities to set up advisory committees consisting partly of members of the local authority and partly of other persons.

The First Schedule to the Bill contains a list of the enactments being repealed. Most of these repeals are consequential on amendments in the body of the Bill. There are two repeals, however, to which I would like to draw special attention. The first is the repeal of Section 51 (7) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. The repeal of this provision will put local authorities on the same footing as other bodies in so far as liability for payment of debts is concerned. I should like to refer in this connection to the Public Authorities (Judicial Proceedings) Bill, 1954, which is at present before the House and which will have the effect of placing local authorities on the same footing as other bodies in so far as legal actions are concerned.

The other provision in this Schedule to which I would refer is the repeal of Section 10 (2) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908. Under that section the amount of money which could be raised in any year for the purpose of university scholarships could not exceed the proceeds of 1d. rate or such higher rate as a local authority with the consent of the Minister for Local Government might fix. This limitation is now being repealed.

I had the privilege of helping to introduce into the House the 1946 Local Government Act, which dealt with a number of miscellaneous matters—as in the case of this Bill, which could be described as a consolidating or cleaning-up Bill. As the Minister says, it is largely a Committee Bill and we will have to reserve discussion on many of the sections until the Committee Stage. A great deal of the Bill requires very careful examination because, as the Minister says, it is by reference.

In speaking of the Bill in general and the extent to which it effects consolidation, I think I would not be out of place in asking the Minister whether he has examined the work of the legal officers who were classifying and preparing the work of consolidation of local government law and whether he does not think the expenditure of a certain amount of money by his Department would not, in the long run, save enormous sums in the form of legal expenses, administrative expenses and a number of offices in his Department, if it would have the effect of bringing about a larger measure of consolidation than that which is evident in this Bill.

The Minister himself is in the legal profession. He knows the position; he knows that certain specialists in local government law have been appointed, I think by various Ministers from time to time, to deal with consolidation; but while the last Government and the previous Government have done a certain amount, Local Government law is, from the standpoint of being able to find out what the law is, still in rather a chaotic condition.

For example. I think the franchise law in this country is embodied in something like 60 statutes dating back to 1845. Therefore, I would ask the Minister, when he replies on this stage of the Bill, to tell us how far the work of consolidation is proceeding. He might also tell us whether the specialists in his Department are continuing their work and whether he agrees with this side of the House that the money spent on salaries or consultants' fees would be more than repaid over a period of ten or 15 years through the process of simplification.

The next question is a rather more fundamental and important one. Deputy McGilligan, the present Attorney-General, during the course of the last election, made a number of important observations on what purported to be the view of his Party on bureaucracy in this country. He said in the course of one speech that one of the methods of economy would be to cease recruiting for the Civil Service. Another Deputy in the same Party pointed out in another speech that that would create some sort of grievance and that people who were accustomed to send their children to the Civil Service would be deprived of that facility. Deputy McGilligan went on to say that it might be possible to delegate very largely the powers of the central Government, the powers of the Minister for Local Government, to local authorities and that by so doing the number of civil servants required in the Department of Local Government could be materially reduced, to the point of actually effecting economies in the whole of the State administration and a considerable reduction in the cost of the Civil Service. That speech of Deputy McGilligan was made apparently in absolute sincerity.

When we look at this Bill we see that the Minister for Local Government retains all his powers, his powers being clarified and extended, and that there is not the smallest indication that he intends to take the advice of Deputy McGilligan and to delegate to local authorities the many powers that he has. As the House well knows, the Minister for Local Government controls practically every single act of local authorities. He controls the whole of the machinery of appointment and he insists on uniformity in regard to all local authority establishments. He controls the entire arrangements for the financial working of all local authorities. The reason for that is twofold, as the Minister knows. The history of local government has been that—largely because local authorities were engaged in the work of struggling for independence—they were considered to be irresponsible, capable of committing abuses and, as a result, the central Government took more and more control of their activities.

The other reason for the power of the Minister lies in the fact that the Government now provides grants for almost every type of local government administration, and as the grants are provided by the central authority, the central authority insists on uniform methods of carrying out the work for which the money is provided and insists on uniformity in regard to the whole of the establishment. That is an excellent reason for having this central control, but I would like to ask the Minister whether this Bill reveals the fact that he does not intend to make any major change in regard to his own powers, and whether he has come to the conclusion that, now that the rates provide only a proportion of the expenditure of a local authority, it is necessary for him to retain the enormous panoply of powers which this Bill contains and which other Acts have given to him. It would be best if he were frank with us in regard to this matter.

Further than that, the Minister announced his intention of introducing a Bill amending the County Management Act. We are asked to consider this Bill before the County Management Amendment Bill is introduced, and we are being asked to consider it although there are many sections in which the powers of local authorities are referred to, but according to the present law the powers of the local authorities in regard to these questions involving establishment, administration and the appointment of officers are, in fact, reserved to the county manager.

It is not going to be easy for us to discuss on the Committee Stage quite a number of sections of this Bill when we have not yet any idea of what is in the Minister's mind in regard to how far the elected members of the local authorities may or may not be given back some of their original powers in regard to determining the number of officers, the kind of officers, the payment of officers and so forth. I am not suggesting that we on this side believe necessarily that local authorities should be given wide authority in regard to matters of employment, staff conditions and so forth. That is a matter for consideration later on; but I do say that to examine part of this Bill without knowing what is in the Minister's mind, and whether he is going to make any drastic changes in the law, is going to be difficult. Therefore, I would like to ask him how he views that matter and whether he considers it wise under present circumstances to introduce this Bill without introducing at the same time the new County Management Bill. I think it is a fair question which the Minister should be able to answer.

In that connection, I would refer particularly to Sections 12 and 14 of the Bill, which relate to the power of the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, to abolish offices or create new offices. There has been a feeling for some considerable time that the staffs of local authorities have grown to the point where the elected members should have powers of consent, to decide whether or not either temporary or permanent officers should be appointed.

In other words, they should begin to take again at least some responsibility for the complexus of officerships for which they have to provide rates and, therefore, Sections 12 and 14 can only be discussed properly if we have some idea of what is in the Minister's mind in regard to that matter. For example, there have been cases in some areas where dispensary doctors have been allowed to appoint substitutes living 14 miles from their area. Is there anything in this Bill which would enable the local authority to check this practice? Is there anything in this Bill to give the elected members some right to decide whether or not it is right for a substitute midwife to be appointed in an area 15 miles from where the normal midwife is carrying out her duties? That is a reasonable question.

Our attitude to all the sections of this Bill where the transfer of offices from one to another, where the abolition of offices or the creation of new offices is involved, will depend on what the Minister can tell us on the Committee Stage of his intentions in regard to the powers of local authorities now, without our having to wait for the County Management Bill to be drafted and introduced into this House.

I come now to the sections amending the law in regard to roads. I should like to ask the Minister whether the absence of any legislation which would have some effect in deciding upon the vexed question of private roads indicates that he has not been able to make up his mind on the matter and whether he intends to make no further change in the law.

I admit that, because of the immense financial difficulties involved, no Government in this country— neither our Government nor any Government—have really faced up to the realities of the 20,000 miles of private non-public roads in this country which amount, I think I am right in saying, may be compared with the 50,000 miles of public roads. I am not suggesting that the present Minister is in any way remiss in that, because while a great deal was done to enable these roads to be put in proper condition by the Fianna Fáil Government, and continued by successive Governments, it seems to me that at the present time the position is becoming more acute. In the course of the past few years an Act was passed here, at the instance of Deputy McQuillan, enabling local authorities to take over non-public roads, cul-de-sac roads, which, under the Local Government Act of 1925, they had been forbidden to do before unless they led to new houses or except under special circumstances. I understand that very few local authorities have taken advantage of that Act. I understand that they have been afraid to expend the money that would be involved if they set any precedent in regard to taking over, to any degree, any group of non-public roads in a particular area.

As the Minister knows, in areas where there is a high degree of unemployment in the winter months the minor relief grants have been sufficient to effect a considerable amount of repairs on these non-public roads. In areas where the number of unemployed registered in the winter months is not sufficient, the only relief available is that under the rural improvements schemes grants, which were first promulgated under the Fianna Fáil Government. Very great difficulties have been experienced in getting consent for the contribution required, even if it is only 10 per cent. The whole social character of large parts of the Irish countryside is changing, due to the gradual and continued disrepair of these roads and the ever higher standards required by the users of these roads for social and economic purposes.

The changes relate to the value of farms at the end of boreens, which have gone down in value regardless of the value of the land itself. We know of residences which have ceased to be residences and have become straw farms, out houses. It may be that this change in the character of our agricultural life and in the value of farms may continue and is something that cannot be arrested. I would ask the Minister if any change in the classification of roads indicates that he has not made up his mind about it or that he feels the present legislation is as far as he can go and that we shall have to watch the gradual deterioration of many thousands of miles of non-public roads because no finance can be made available under any head to repair them.

I am glad that, in Section 39, arrangements have been made to simplify the administration in connection with cars that come from the other side of the water. I would ask the Minister whether, under Section 39, it would be possible for British citizens who come here to have some means by which they would not have to get an Irish driving licence. It seems to me that it would be a useful thing from the tourist point of view. They come over in very large numbers. If the Minister thinks he must have the money from the driving licences, I suppose it would not be desirable to make that change but, under Section 39, can the Minister make an Order of that kind?

In the 1946 Act a good deal was done to improve the legislation in regard to traffic and road signs. I am glad to see that further steps are being taken in that direction. I hope the Minister, when he makes use of his powers, will do something to create some kind of uniformity in the use of bend signs. The standards adopted by county engineers throughout the country as to when, and when not, to have a bend sign vary enormously. There are places where it would be far better to have a bend sign at the beginning of a long stretch of road to indicate that there will be continuous bends for, say, three miles. That has been done in some areas and not in other areas. If the Minister could effect greater coordination under this section in regard to the use of bend signs, it would be of immense benefit.

Does the Minister intend to make use of these sections also in order to encourage some uniform attitude in regard to the use of halt signs at important crossroads? At present, in some counties, if you proceed from a minor road to a main road, the major road ahead sign is used with a fair degree of uniformity, but in other cases there are startling omissions. The sign compelling a motorist to halt before emerging from a side road to a main road is rarely used, and is used inconsistently. In some cases, roads which now have the halt sign seem to be much less important, from the point of view of traffic safety, than other dangerous intersections where the halt sign would be of great advantage.

I would further ask the Minister whether or not he intends to make use of these amending sections to try and establish some sort of uniformity or to encourage county engineers to come together to make up their minds, themselves, as to how to use "cats' eyes." They are of immense benefit to motorists but, again, their use is completely haphazard. There are some counties where, on the main arterial roads, the "cats' eyes" are continuous even where there are no bends, but there are other places where the road suddenly bends and where there are no "cats' eyes" and, naturally, that confuses the long-distance motorist. In connection with all these traffic and road sign regulations, I think myself that the Minister, instead of using compulsory powers, should try and get the county engineers to come together and work out a system for themselves, to be approved by their local authorities. I hope the Minister will make use of this legislation for that purpose.

There is a section enabling local authorities to acquire land for the purpose of quarries. I am glad to see that provision. The Minister is, no doubt, well aware that local authorities have had difficulty in some areas in obtaining stone which, when mixed with tar, does not polish very rapidly. We are aware that a scientific test can be applied to stone and, literally, millions of pounds can be saved over a period of 30 years if care is taken in the selection of the stone. The types of stone that polish quickly are a source of enormous expense to the road authority as they are also in connection with disbursements from the Central Fund.

In the section relating to powers the Minister is going to have in regard to the character of bridges across rivers, I do hope the Minister will consider the amending section very carefully. As the Minister knows an inland waterways association has been formed in Athlone to try to increase the use made of the Shannon for social, tourist and fishing purposes, and has suggested that there should be buses on the Shannon, that is to say, motor cruises for tourist purposes during the summer months. In the meantime, so far as I know, the arrangement has definitely been made that the bridge of Athlone should now be a fixed bridge. We have been told that the cost of providing a temporary bridge if a fixed bridge is constructed, added to the cost of the bridge, will be as great as the cost of an opening bridge. I am not aware of all the facts in that connection but I do hope the arrangements for providing for inquiries to decide whether bridges should be fixed or open bridges will be such as to provide for a rather far-seeing view in the matter. It is quite possible to hold an inquiry when some of these matters which relate to future policy will not be properly considered. I should like to ask the Minister what his view is on the fixed bridge question on the Shannon and whether he regards the amendments provided in this Bill as sufficient to allow for some flexibility of action.

As regards Section 43, I notice an improvement in drafting in relation to financial powers of local authorities which I should have thought to be hardly necessary. He has decided that there should be a redrafting of a considerable amount of legislation which I thought was fairly clear.

I am glad to see that under Section 45 something is being done to enable local authorities to carry out the reconstruction of town halls. Many of them are a disgrace to our present civilisation, and I am glad that such powers are now being taken. In relation to Section 48, I hope the Minister, when he comes to describing in detail the changes in the Local Authorities (Works) Act legislation, will make very clear the position in regard to compensation. We on this side of the House regard the Local Authorities (Works) Act in two ways: we agree that a great deal of the money was usefully spent but we also claim that enormous sums were wasted, that in certain areas where rivers were repaired at the wrong time of the year men were standing up to their waist shovelling earth out of streams and that no arrangements were made to maintain such rivers.

There are a great many rivers at the present time which have been cleaned under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, but because there is no statutory method by which they can be maintained and because local authorities are not responsible for maintaining them, hundreds of thousands of pounds spent in the course of the last four years were wasted money. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the absence of any law in regard to the maintenance of rivers repaired under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. We have legislation governing arterial drainage which has been approved by the House and which appears to be working fairly well. It provides for the maintenance of arterial drainage by each county on the basis of a report prepared by the Commissioners of Public Works. We have the Land Reclamation Act under which minor drains on agricultural land have been repaired, and we have the Local Authorities (Works) Act which provides for rivers which do not come within the ambit of the Arterial Drainage Act.

From what I can see in this Bill the Minister has not faced up to the problem of the maintenance of Local Authorities (Works) Act rivers once they have been drained; neither is he compelling a local authority to maintain them nor is he making arrangements whereby the State may give to the local authority a continuing grant for their maintenance. As I have said, the Local Authorities (Works) Act has had good and bad effects; a lot of good work has been done and bad work has been done.

There remain in a number of counties rivers that could be well repaired and satisfactorily repaired provided difficulties in paying compensation to mill owners could be overcome. I hope the Minister will explain on the different stages of this Bill whether he has done enough to enable the opposition that is encountered in all local authorities to paying compensation to be got over. There are at least four rivers, for example, in County Longford, in which there are mills which are more or less derelict or where the water is rarely used and where nothing can be done because of the objection of the mill owner, the difficulty of paying compensation and the difficulty of persuading county councils even to start proceedings to recommend the repair of the river.

Section 51 removes an anomaly in connection with the apportionment of the country rate with urban authorities. I understand that the implication there again is that the Minister for Local Government, like all his predecessors, is once more tinkering with the valuation problem. I can cast no reflection against him because no Government has yet tackled it, but I do think this section, though when we come to discuss it it may prove to be an excellent and a wise one, is once more tinkering with the problem.

Section 52 will succeed, I hope, in getting over the difficulties whereby the arrangement for plebiscites for changing street names would appear to be undemocratic. Even though we did our best under the 1946 Act to put the matter right, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Act has been widely availed of and whether in fact there has been a necessity for the provisions made one way or another.

Under Section 53 the Minister has provided that county councils will now be able to make grants for the building of parish halls instead of building them themselves. I should like to ask the Minister whether in that connection he has examined the clause of the 1941 Act which provided for the setting up of parish councils or whether he has decided that the 1941 Act has said the last word in regard to that matter. As the Minister knows because of the growth of specialisation and of the number of functions of all local authorities, we have over the last 30 years been increasing the size of local authority units. He knows, as we all do, that the boards of guardians have been abolished, rural district councils have been abolished, officers have been appointed for more than one county and so forth. I think it has been considered in a rather vague way recently that the process might have gone too far, that in relation to the need for establishing a greater degree of cooperation amongst smaller units of the community, perhaps an experiment in the opposite direction might bear fruit. Has the Minister considered in connection with this legislation whether parish councils should be given a greater authority than they have under the 1941 Act? Has he considered why there are so few parish councils, whether it is true that the vast majority of people in this country have not got the parish mentality in the administrative sense? Has he considered whether the amount of money they could spend under prevailing conditions would be so small that to strike a parish council rate would have quite a different effect than it would in England because there simply is not the amount of prosperity in the purely rural community to make the striking of a rate such as that effective.

Has the Minister brought his mind to bear on the whole problem of whether, if we do have local authority areas becoming larger and larger as time goes on, we should not by way of complete contrast try and experiment in creating very small areas in order to implement the work of associations such as Muintir na Tíre and so forth and give some statutory significance to the work of the small communities? I have not made up my mind about this problem nor has any member of our Party. None of us has faced this question of creating a sense of local responsibility by reversing the general trend of local government law in regard to the size and units of local authorities. I think the Minister will agree it is a matter worthy of consideration that we should not abandon all thought of the parish council idea solely because there are very few parish councils, if any, established under the 1941 Act.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the amendments in this Bill are an indication that he intends to take no further action in regard to that problem.

There are a number of useful small sections enabling local authorities to give grants for swimming pools to local authorities, which should have an excellent effect. There must be a tremendous vacuum in the swimming world in this country which needs to be filled. May I, without going beyond the provisions of the Bill, ask the Minister why he did not take advantage of this Bill to examine the derelict site legislation? I know that when I ceased to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government the Derelict Sites Act of 1940 had already proved to have limitations, and there were difficulties in regard to implementing it.

There is still a vast number of derelict sites throughout the country although they have been improved. There are derelict sites which have been repaired by simply putting up a wall between two houses behind which grow nettles and ugly trees. They look like a temporary patch on a place that still looks unkempt. There is an enormous amount of work to be done in this connection. I am well aware that it is very difficult to get the work done on account of the very high rates which local authorities bear.

As the Minister knows, a great part of the housing of the local authorities will be completed in the course of the next two years. I understand that 45 out of 116 housing authorities are about to complete the building of houses. As the Minister knows, building labour is very immobile and the present Government will find it just as difficult as we did to give employment to constructional workers throughout the year. The present Government will find, as we did, that local building contractors do not like to do much work in the winter months. Unemployment inevitably arises in the winter months and something needs to be done in order to overcome the difficulties of unemployment in addition to what can be provided through the National Development Fund, namely, increased contributions for roads and sanitary services for small villages. It might be, if the Minister were to revise the derelict sites legislation, that he would get more work done under that head. He might consider altering the methods by which the work is done or encourage the local authorities to do more work.

I notice that the Minister in connection with a minor amendment in regard to legislation governing the control of fair tolls, as in the case of valuation, found it impossible, like other Ministers, to make up his mind what should be done about the holding of fairs in crowded market streets. I have no observations to make on that except to say he has decided not to go forward in regard to the matter.

The section in relation to the provision of conciliation machinery is one which will, I think, create an interesting discussion. I see no objection to providing conciliation machinery but in most cases it has been found that conciliation machinery for workers should consist of persons who are quite independent and who have no connection with the employment of the persons concerned. Industrial tribunals in other countries where they are formed locally for local purposes consist of an employer's representative, an employee's representative and a neutral chairman. It has generally been found difficult to provide proper conciliation where the people who are on the conciliation committee consist in some degree of the employers of the persons concerned. Anomalies and difficulties arise. Prejudice exists. I should like the Minister to let us know, when answering on the Second Stage, whether he has considered all that matter. In the case of industrial courts and local industrial courts in other countries, it has been found that the independent view can be a humane view. The people concerned can have the independent judicial sense which bodies have when their members do not consist of those who employ the men who come before them for the consideration of their cases. The Minister in proposing this machinery is making a departure from that general conception. I am not saying he is wrong. I think it is a matter we should think over very carefully on the Committee Stage. Giving powers to a local authority to appoint non-members to act as conciliation bodies in these cases might create difficulties just as great for the workers concerned as for the employing authority. I wonder has the Minister considered the matter sufficiently fully?

I could spend very much longer on the Second Stage, but, as the Minister said, I think this is a Committee Bill. I should like to ask the Minister how far he can give us information in advance as to how he intends to alter the powers of the County Management Act when we come to discuss the administrative section of the Bill and the part of the Bill which relates to the employment of officers and their conditions.

I should like to approach the Second Reading of this Bill on the basis of trying to get from the Minister answers to certain questions. When he hears them, he will agree with me that it is somewhat difficult for those who are members of local authorities to fully appreciate and understand, and not misjudge, certain items in this Bill. Obviously, this is a departmental Bill and in my opinion it must have been under consideration for years.

There is no question of Government policy involved. It is not a ministerial Bill arising from Government policy. The Bill was introduced in July and we only received a copy of it last Saturday morning. The Second Reading Stage was to be taken to-day. There is no objection to that. At this stage I should like to ask the Minister whether he would be agreeable to give us a reasonable period of time between Second Stage and Committee Stage to study the Bill.

May I say at this stage that I certainly will?

We have got to consult with each other and see how it affects the interests of local authorities. First, I should like to say this. I am not able to say—maybe the Minister will help us on this now or later and if he does so now it will make it unnecessary for me, at any rate, to deal with a number of points which I have noted—if the local authority referred to in this Bill is the manager or the elected representatives. From the way I have read the Bill it appears to me that the local authority referred to every time except in one section is the manager. That being the case, of course, I have a considerable amount of objections to certain things and I suppose by the Committee Stage with my colleagues we will probably find agreement as to what amendments might be introduced. It is only in Section 25, I think, that the term "local authority" refers to the elected representatives——

Would the Deputy like me to clarify that now?

Subject to the consent of the House, I will clarify the position in this matter. The words "local authority" in this Bill will be construed as the law stands at present on the basis of the reserved functions and executive functions but when we come to deal with the County Management Bill, which I would rather not discuss at this stage, and the amendments to it, the words "local authority" will then be construed as meaning the reserved or executive functions as the House may decide when they discuss the Bill.

The Minister will agree then that I am correct in concluding that so far as this Bill is concerned the local authority is the manager?

As the law stands; in Sections 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58.

I would say all the references to the local authority mean the county manager or the city manager as the case may be except where it is expressly referred to that the representatives have certain functions as in the case, say, of Section 25.

Could we not have the County Management Bill first?

Well, you heard what the Deputy said—that it was not my Bill? You heard him say that?

I agree that this is a Bill which has been worked on for years by officials of the Department, and has been put to the Minister for him to pilot through the House in order that the Local Government Department and the Custom House can get rid of a lot of difficulties.

I take full responsibility for the Custom House.

I agree, but I am not going to suggest that I am for one moment believing that this is the Minister's or the Government's policy.

Section 59—I am not going through it from beginning to end, but as I pick the points out—proposes in the year 1954 to make the councillors only an advisory body. We are going back to the 1927 Act when the Cork Bill was passed, and all that we as councillors will be able to do as a result of sections of this Bill will be to strike a rate and we will have practically no other responsibility. The Minister referred to the explanatory memorandum which he said was issued in order to make the Bill a little bit more understandable but I would like to say to him as a layman, not a legal man, I find that in certain parts, the explanatory memorandum is just as difficult to understand as the section of the Bill it purports to explain. In the explanatory note in connection with Section 59 it is not clear whether this is a reserve power or otherwise.

In amending the 1941 Act, in all the various sections under what we call Chapter I here, all this Bill is attempting to do is to give the Minister complete control of staffs of local authorities, and elected representatives will be completely excluded from any say in the selection, appointment or terms and conditions of appointment of officials. At this stage I should like to say that where Section 25 deals with this conciliatory body that it is purporting to set up and to which the previous speaker has referred the word "servant" is used. Now the Minister will know just as I have said that the local authority here is the manager and the word "servant" as we understand it in our local authority applies solely to those who are in receipt of weekly payments and all who receive monthly payments are excluded.

Superannuation might explain that.

Yes, I know superannuation might explain that, but the fact is that if a manager either by himself or with the consent of the Minister wants to make certain new regulations or deal with certain officials they cannot appeal to their elected representatives as can those who are described as "servants". There is no appeal to the elected representatives, and that in my opinion will be considered by us. I think, personally, if we have to keep in mind that amendments to the Managerial Acts restoring greater powers to the elected representatives are to be introduced, it will take away from the reserve functions certain of the sole rights of the manager but it is going to be more difficult unless we know when this Managerial Act is coming in.

The Minister recently I think spent a considerable amount of time visiting quite a number of local authorities, meeting elected representatives and trying his best to hear from them their grievances and what suggestions they had. In the case of Dublin, he will recall that I apologised for not being able to be present for a particular reason and he was good enough to say that he could appreciate that on that occasion he could not be met by the representatives with all the details of their complaints, but he would welcome from them whatever suggestions they had when they could get together, and that there was no Party situation involved.

He did not say he would accept the suggestions but that he would consider each suggestion made to him. To us that sounded good because we have a whole series of grievances, but now our grievances are going to be nailed down and much more difficult to remove if we are going to legislate in favour of things to which we object. I cannot understand nor appreciate how the position will be. The Minister will find himself in very serious difficulty if now at this stage he legislates and gets a Bill through copper-fastening certain sections which afterwards in the amendment of the City Management Act he wants to take away, not from the present position but from the position that has made the present position even worse.

One of the things that I want to point out to the Minister is this: the local authority, the manager, can when and if this Bill becomes an Act in its present form if he likes, pick, and add to the staffs. He can employ 20 engineers, God knows how many doctors without consulting the elected representatives and without asking them if they are prepared to meet these extra charges when the striking of the rate comes round. We think it would be a good thing if the Minister would agree that those responsible for striking the rate and who have to face the criticism of the public and the Press should have at least some knowledge of these alterations in regard to staffs, these alterations in conditions, if you like, improvements in salaries and so on, because they have to find the money to pay for them.

This same situation arose on the last occasion on which we had a Bill to amend the managerial system. The Minister brings in an amendment in Section 25 of this Bill to the 1930 Management Act and I should like to know from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle if it will be possible to bring in other amendments to that Act. Does the Minister not open up the road by this method?

We had all this out before on the other Act because there were certain amendments which we wanted to put in at that time. I moved, at the time the other Act was being discussed, an amendment to insert before Section 59 a provision that, at the beginning of every month, the manager shall cause to be prepared and furnished to every member of a council particulars of all staff proposals submitted by him to the appropriate Minister since the next previous meeting of the council and the decisions of the said appropriate Minister received by the manager during the same period. I wanted to ensure that the councillors would know that the manager had said to the Minister: "I want sanction to put on 12 extra engineers at such and such rates of salaries" and, if the Minister agreed to the appointments, the manager having shown reasonable cause on the basis of need and so on, that once a month the people who have to raise the money to pay these appointees would at least be notified. What is the present position?

There is no necessity to notify them at the moment.

I know. I wanted that change made on the last occasion on which we had legislation before us.

Was that not on the County Management Bill?

We are not dealing with it now.

Here is a Bill which deals with the county manager in one section at least. The Bill deals with all county managers, but it deals with city management as well. I am sure the Minister knows that this is what happens. We in Dublin Corporation, shortly before the period arrives when we have to strike a rate—I am speaking as chairman of the finance committee and I have the whole council as members of the committee—are presented with a volume of estimates already prepared by the city manager and we have to examine as best we can certain things. We cannot interfere with certain things. We handle an expenditure in the City of Dublin of £8,000,000, a good portion of which is, of course, grants. The Minister says: "I am giving you a right now of an appeal for your servants to yourselves if they are unfairly treated or think they are unfairly treated." I want the Minister to extend that same right of appeal to all officials, including what are described as the servants. I want him to realise that there are certain sections in the Bill which will, in fact, amend the management of local authorities. That is what this is doing. If one reads the Schedules, one will find that it amends Management Acts all through.

The Minister has introduced a section in this Bill which permits authorities, other than those which at present have sanction, to levy for the decoration of the city. I, on a previous occasion, sought to amend the position we are faced with. Every local authority other than ours can strike a rate or can levy this penny and up to threepence by a majority of the members. In the case of the City of Dublin, two-thirds of the members have to be present, and I want to know whether the Minister is prepared to put us in the City of Dublin on the very same level as all other local authorities and allow a majority of those present at a meeting of that kind to make the decision—notice has to be given so the Minister has control over our expenditure—so that we will not be put to the trouble of having to have two-thirds of the members present, unlike all other authorities.

Will the Minister say that Section 18 seeks to amend Section 27 of the Local Government Act, 1941, by the deletion of the words "local authority representatives", that is to say, the elected representatives, and preventing them from having any say in the matters referred to? These are the alterations and amendments which are driving us further into a dictatorial situation so far as local authorities are concerned in their relations with the Custom House. We do not mind control, but if we are to regard ourselves seriously as elected representatives, acting on behalf of those who elected us, we ought to have some say in the doing of things and everything should not be left in the hands of what is called here the local authority—a new name for the manager. The elected representatives cease to be members of the local authorities and are just puppets.

Section 12 is objectionable in the same way and Section 17 is a section of which I am rather doubtful. I am doubtful if it will be acceptable to any set of local representatives. The local authority representatives, as I have already made clear, will have no say whatever in the appointment of their officials, but Section 17 gives the local authority, the manager, the right to switch officials from one local authority to another.

Surely if the manager up in Donegal wants to make a deal with the manager in Dublin about bringing somebody down from Donegal, or sending somebody from Dublin to Donegal, the local authority representatives should have some say in the matter. They should at least be consulted and not suddenly find that they have a number of officials from other areas altogether transferred to them without their knowledge or consent. Surely that is an unfair suggestion. It is something in objecting to which I will do my very best to influence my colleagues on this side to support me. I do not know that the Minister really studied this Bill because I think he will give us credit for having a little more intelligence than sub-section 5 of Section 12 would suggest we have. That sub-section suggests that at any time an office in a local authority can be abolished but, if there is a certain person in that office, it can only be abolished with that occupier's consent. What does that mean? It means that the Local Government Department will have a device by which they can, without disclosing their policy or reason, get rid of every town clerk in every local authority because when his time comes to go or if he cannot be induced to go before his time is up, the position will be declared vacant and the office can be abolished. In the Dublin Corporation—I take it the same position obtains all through the country—the link between the elected representatives and the official side of the local authority happens to be the town clerk. I would not like to see that office abolished without the consent of the elected representatives. Why are they not included for consideration? Why should the Minister and the management take it upon themselves to decide to abolish an office under any local authority? Surely that should be a matter where there should be an understanding between all concerned, including particularly the elected representatives.

It is very difficult to understand Section 24. I think one would have to be a lawyer really to understand it. The explanation in the memorandum is equally hard to understand and to relate. It deals with the age limit and with the officers, including the managers themselves. I am a bit suspicious that this is not going to work out in the way public representatives want it to work, if this section is carried. It is quite clear, because we discussed it on many occasions in this House, that if you want a man to fill the serious and important office of city or county manager, he must be someone of intelligence and experience and if he is not taken from the service, if he is taken from outside—a brilliant man from outside the Civil Service or the local authority service—he at least must have reached the age of 40 years and under this section he would not qualify for a reasonable pension. We are going by this device to open up a position where the office of city or county manager will be channelled into a situation where only either civil servants or local authority servants will be able to do the job because no man of the calibre suitable for the job of City of Dublin Manager, if he is 40 or over, would accept the position if at the end of 25 years he must give it up. Where would his pension rights be? There are certain limits to what can be added and I would ask the Minister to consider that.

Would the Deputy suggest an upper age limit?

The position that existed before made the appointment of manager an appointment in certain cases for life. There was no age limit.

They died or resigned.

They died or resigned. They could not be removed.

That is the ideal situation?

I am not saying it is ideal, but it is not any less ideal from a sarcastic point of view, than the other. We, as public representatives, have a suspicion that because of the age limit attached to this particular office and because of the difficulty of getting a man of the calibre required to fill such a position, you will never get candidates at the age such persons enter the Civil Service. You will never be able to get a man who can give 40 years' service and qualify for a full pension. We shall be opening the door, with our eyes open, to a position where, from now on, every city manager will be an official brought from some Department or other, because even if he has reached the age of 40 or 50, he will already have to his credit a sufficient number of years' service to qualify for a full pension at the end of his managerial appointment.

In addition to that, one has to consider that we are now enacting corrective and retrospective legislation. A few people were appointed for life and an attempt was made by the Department to get rid of them. In one case, a manager succeeded in maintaining his right in court to hold his position as long as he wished or until he was removed for legitimate cause. We are now including the office of Manager of the City of Dublin. Again, may I say this man was appointed under a particular Act, which is also being amended? I am not arguing it because of that fact, although it is wrong in my opinion. That man was appointed under an Act of Parliament giving him a statutory right to his position for life, and to come along now and say, in the language we are using, that we now deem it to have been that he was never so appointed and, therefore, his term of office must end when he is 65, is ridiculous. Many years ago, we brought in an amendment—I think it was to the Copyright Act—resulting from a legal decision, and the wording of the amendment was something to this effect: "That the word ‘may' in the principal Act shall now be deemed to have been ‘shall', and shall always be deemed to have been ‘shall'." In other words, you bring in a Bill to provide that the word "may" meant "shall", and we now say it always meant "shall".

The Minister has, in Section 60, a suggestion that certain Orders or regulations, when they are to be put into effect, shall be laid on the Table of the House. In view of the fact that these regulations will be made without the knowledge of any single member of the council, including the Lord Mayor, would it not be fair to say that these regulations laid on the Table of the House should be open for inspection, and, if not objected to within 30 days, that they then become effective? It is unfair to elected representatives to put them in the position that regulations will be made about which they know nothing concerning the administrative side of the body to which they happen to be elected and which they help to run and that, after a certain period, those regulations are laid on the Table of this House; we will know then what the regulations are, but we will have no means of altering them or protesting against them. If the Minister listens too much to the official side in the Custom House as to how to manage local authorities and the elected representatives, he will, in turn, cause those local representatives who give their time free and without any compensation whatsoever in serving the public on local authorities to give that position a great deal of examination.

This is not, of course, confined to Dublin. Local representatives do that voluntarily all over the country.

I agree, but in the case of Dublin they do not even get car fare. Those of us who attend the City Hall and who use our own cars to get there have to pay the car park attendant for looking after our cars while we are engaged on our public duties. If the Minister puts us in the position of being merely puppets, which will be the effect of this particular Bill if some of the sections are carried into effect, I can assure him that many people will cease to seek election because they will not be interested in acting merely as an advisory body in a very limited fashion.

The Minister has been good enough to say he will give us a reasonable period in which to consider this Bill in detail. Apart from the variety of interests, if you like, of a Party such as this which has representatives in it from all over the country, the members of every local authority will also have to come together and see whether they agree or disagree. In our particular local authority we will probably appoint a committee, representative of all Parties, to go into the matter in detail in order to find out what will be for the best interests of Dublin. From what I know of my colleagues on that body I think I am safe in saying that they will approach the matter from the point of view of trying to achieve the best form of civic administration irrespective of political allegiance.

I do not like a number of these sections. I hope that when we deal with them on committee the Minister himself will have come to the conclusion that some of these had better be postponed. Perhaps this Bill could be postponed until the introduction of the County Management (Amendment) Bill so that the two might be discussed together. It has been stated that the policy of the present Government is to restore to the elected representatives of local authorities the powers which were taken from them through the medium of certain Acts. There is no sense in saying that is the policy if in the meanwhile legislation is introduced which will make the present bad situation very much worse. I take it the Minister has enough experience of local authorities and local representatives to realise that this will have the effect of souring those who serve the public on local authorities. He has been good enough to say he will give us time to consider amendments between this and the Committee Stage. He has been good enough to admit that the words "local authority" referred to in this Bill really mean the manager, with certain limited exceptions.

With exceptions.

Limited exceptions.

A large number of exceptions.

I would like to know where they are.

Look at Sections 42, 43, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 64.

It does not apply to Section 25.

And Section 25, yes.

So I thought. It applies to about six sections roughly.

The Deputy knows I have only picked these examples out simply because he raised the question. It applies to many more. Would it not be better to wait until the Committee Stage?

No. Does it apply to Section 12 and Section 17?

If the Deputy finishes his speech, I will refer to them when I am replying. Will that satisfy the Deputy?

Yes, if the Minister will say—I am serious about this—in reply exactly in which sections is the local authority interpreted as being the manager and in which is the local authority interpreted as being the elected representatives.

I shall do that on the Committee Stage in each section in detail. Is that fair?

I thought the Minister said he would do it when he was replying to-night.

The Deputy will appreciate that I shall not have an opportunity of going into each section in detail when replying.

I am not trying to take advantage of the situation at all. Earlier the Minister gave me to understand that I was correct in assuming that local authority in many major cases here meant the manager.

Not necessarily.

If the Minister is prepared to put a definition in the Bill —this will solve the difficulty—that "local authority" means the elected representatives practically all my objections to the Bill will go. All I want is just one definition showing clearly that "local authority" does not mean the manager exclusively and I will withdraw all my objections. But I do not think the Minister will do that because I do not think he can.

Better wait and see the County Management (Amendment) Bill.

Can the Minister give us any indication of a possible date for the introduction of that measure?

We are not discussing the County Management (Amendment) Bill.

We have been for the past hour or 20 minutes.

I bow to the Chair's ruling.

Deputy Briscoe is entitled on the Second Reading to refer to something he would like to see in the Bill. That is the general practice of the House. Deputy Briscoe can refer to something he would like to see incorporated in the Bill, as well as dealing with the actual provisions in the Bill. That is quite in order and it is quite relevant.

If the Minister will tell me I am wrong in being suspicious that the words "local authority" mean the manager in all the sections, then I will apologise for the speech I have made.

Local authority does not mean the manager in all the sections.

But it does in some of the sections?

The Deputy is jumping around again.

I am quite serious about this. Apparently the Minister is serious too because he is not prepared to answer offhand the question I put to him. It is quite clear that "local authority" in some sections means the manager to the exclusion of the elected representatives. The Minister says that in the sections which he enumerated it means the city or county manager plus the elected representatives.

I have referred to the sections in which clearly "local authority" means the manager to the exclusion of the elected representatives. The Minister says on the Committee Stage he will make the matter clear section by section. If the Minister undertakes to do that I shall be quite satisfied but I do not think he should blame me in the meanwhile for reconsidering this and holding fast to my interpretation of what is meant in certain of the sections. The Minister agrees that he will on Committee Stage in each section indicate whether it is the manager alone.

It might assist the Deputy if I refer to Section 6. I was not responsible for Section 6, the definition section of the 1941 Act.

What does it mean in Part II of the 1941 Act?

I did not introduce the 1941 Act.

The 1941 Act makes the manager the local authority and the Minister is recognising it in this. I am not saying he is to blame for the 1941 Act but there are things in the 1941 Act which, as a result of experience, are found not to be perfect and which should be amended. This whole Bill seeks to amend imperfections as far as the Custom House is concerned in a whole series of their Acts. We cannot say who was responsible for all those mistakes, errors and omissions. This is a Bill seeking to rectify omissions in previous Acts by the Custom House. I have not got the 1941 Act here, Part II, Chapter I, but I am satisfied that if that is the Minister's answer then "local authority" does mean the manager and nobody else.

Do labhar an Teachta Ó Brioscú agus an Teachta Childers ar an mBille seo agus nilim chun an Dáil a choimeád ró-fhada ach tá cupla rudai a bhaineann leis an mBille ar mhaith liom chur sios orthu anseo. They are in connection with the sections that deal with the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Certain powers are given under the Bill for certain finances to be raised towards the cost of the administration of the Local Authorities (Works) Act and I have a suggestion to make to the Minister. All over the country there are drainage districts which embrace certain catchment areas. Why not widen these catchment areas and include the maintenance of the drains that empty into them and let the local authority and the central authority make a contribution towards that work?

Such contribution was made under the Department of Local Government heretofore. It was made in connection with minor employment schemes or minor relief schemes by the Department of Finance through the Board of Works. Why not now deal with this matter systematically rather than wait for a particular unemployment position to arise in any area? Why not make the maintenance of these drains an annual function of the local authority and enlarge the catchment areas? I put that suggestion to the Minister.

I am very glad to note from the Explanatory Memorandum that the definition of a road means any public road, and includes "any bridge, pipe, arch, gulley, footway, pavement, fence, railing or wall (where such fence, railing or wall was erected by or was liable to be maintained by the county council or grand jury) forming part thereof." The Minister takes broad powers unto himself to define a road and that is all to the good.

Deputy Childers has dealt with a very vexed question with which every Deputy from rural Ireland is confronted every day in the week. Lorries and motor cars use boreens daily and the maintenance of these ways into the farms and homes of the people is becoming a problem. While, under Deputy McQuillan's Bill, the maintenance of these roads can be undertaken by the local authority, the problem is so big that they baulk at doing it and will continue to baulk at doing it.

Again I make a suggestion to the Minister, that in co-ordination with the Department which deals with rural improvement schemes, he could authorise the local authority to contribute 25 per cent. or less towards that work.

There is what may seem a trivial matter, which I raised when our Government were in power and again when the inter-Party Government were in power and again now, namely, that the beneficiaries on these boreens should have the same responsibility as have the beneficiaries on the highways. They should be compelled to breast and to cut the hedges. Since this State was established, millions of money have been spent on the highways while one would be far safer from the point of view of light and of clothes being torn off one's back going through the African jungle than going through these boreens. Even after the expenditure of £500 on these roads, there is a canopy of trees over them, there is no sunlight and one might as well throw the money down the drain because, through rain seeping through the hedges they revert to their former position in 12 months' time.

I do not know whether it can be done under this Bill or not but I would suggest to the Minister to authorise the local authority to contribute its portion that the beneficiaries hesitate to contribute now because one or two will kick. In that way the beneficiaries could be made to carry out their responsibilities in the same way as beneficiaries on the highway have to do it.

Deputy Childers dealt with another matter, the contribution from the local authority towards parish halls or local halls. It is my experience and I am sure that of every rural Deputy that the body that will do anything is the town improvements association, not the parish council. Parish councils were established during the Emergency and had on them representatives of the rural community who were noticeable by their absence. It is the few people in the towns at present who are civic minded and these are the people to deal with when local things are to be done. Eventually the others may come in. They are the people who carried the burden of the Red Cross and many other activities during the war. These are the people who build the local halls and everything else. I suggest that we should get in touch with these people and that we would then begin to advance, instead of visualising a parish council which will represent every townland and outlying area, which will not operate as well as a local town improvements association.

Fairs are mentioned in this Bill, fairs on the street and fairs in the towns. I will confine myself to my own constituency. There is a local authority doing its best to improve the health of the people. Athlone has a splendid fair green on which thousands of pounds were spent. In that narrow old town, a good town but which is a thousand years of age, nowhere will do to show sheep and cattle but the street. Children have to go to school in danger to their lives. They have to go through dirt and walk into school with the dung on their boots. Where there is a fair green in a town the local authority should be compelled to exercise complete power by keeping cattle, sheep and pigs off the streets. They should be taken to the fair green and put into the pens provided for them. Money should be made available out of the National Development Fund to provide these fair greens in places where they are not available at present. I know that in saying that the publicans will kick up hell. I was born in a public house myself, and I know that the publicans will want the dealing to go on, as happens at present in so many cases, outside their houses. We have advanced a little, and the fact is that now the ordinary man selling his cattle, sheep or pigs on the streets knows that, in no matter what part of the town he sells his stock, he has to go down and meet the dealer outside the bank to get paid.

The shopkeeper should look at this from the practical point of view. If he dishes up the proper goods to his customers, whether it be drink or anything else, they will come to his shop and deal with him. From the point of view of the health of our people, the Minister should go ahead. There should be a proper public opinion created to ensure that, where fair greens and market places are available for the marketing of live stock and other goods, the business of selling and buying should be carried out there. The same should apply to the marketing of vegetables so as to ensure that our highways would not become a danger to the health of our people and sometimes to life.

There is one other matter that I want to refer to. The Minister is taking power under the Bill to provide conciliation machinery for workers. I suggest that there should be a realistic approach to this whole matter of workers and their remuneration, and of officials and their remuneration. We are a rural community, with 74 per cent. of our people living on valuations of £20 and under. They have no other means of income unless they come under a £4 valuation whereby they get certain benefits if they are unemployed during a certain closed period in the winter. The fact is that the majority of our people are living on holdings with valuations of from £4 to £20. These people, in the rates levied on them, pay the officials and pay the workers, and you can kill the goose that lays the golden egg. You can keep piling on the rates, but eventually, while you are talking about conciliation, arbitration and fair play for everyone, you are going to smash the majority of our people. There needs to be a conservative approach in this whole matter. You can reach the stage when, say, in the County of Westmeath in the case of the 700 people employed there on the roads from one end of the year to the other, the day may come, with this conciliation and arbitration that you may drain the last farthing out of the small farmers and have to cut down your employment by half if you increase wages. I say that because the standard of living is the standard of living of those people on the land. Sooner or later— I do not care what Government is there—that is a problem which it will have to face up to, and face up to very soon. It is all right to be liberal in your talk about what pay such a one should have.

Take the conditions under which people are living down around Benown near Athlone, which at present is under floods. That is an act of Providence, of course, and I am not making politics out of it. But take the conditions under which the people there live at ordinary times. They have no standard of living. I would like people to remember that when they are so glib in talking about "fair this", "fair that" and "fair the other". The Minister for Local Government is the responsible Minister dealing with this Bill, and he will want to be very careful about conciliation. On the other hand, I know what he is up against.

He is up against a number of county councillors who will compete with one another at election times in promising to give the most to everyone, and later will make a great show when it comes to striking the rate by saying that they will strike the lowest rate possible. I want to see candour and honesty in this whole thing. I think I have said the things that I want to say on the Bill.

I want to say that, unlike Deputy Briscoe and some other speakers, I did not get my copy of the Bill until yesterday morning, and therefore, had very little time to examine it. Listening to a number of the Deputies who have spoken on the Bill they were, in my opinion, putting the car before the horse. We know that the Minister went down the country recently and interviewed all the county councils. He told the different county councils a whole lot about the changes that were going to be made in the Managerial Act. From my study of the Bill, I want to know, to whom we are giving the powers set out in it. Drastic changes are being made under the Bill, but before I could honestly vote for these changes I would want to know to whom I am giving the powers set out. I think that the Minister would be well advised to introduce his amendments to the Managerial Act before asking the House to pass this Bill. I am sure that his Parliamentary Secretary will bear me out in this that he also would like to see to whom we are going to give those powers before he would vote for them. The changes that are forecast in this Bill are, in a number of cases, big changes. They have been mentioned by a number of previous speakers. I would ask the Minister to consider what I say very carefully before he asks the House to vote for the changes set out in this Bill. He should not ask people to vote blindly.

On different sections of the Bill the Minister himself was not prepared to say, in the case of some sections, who was the local authority, whether it was the county council composed of the elected representatives or the manager. I have been a member of a local authority for a number of years and I know now who is the local authority. I know that the power which the county councils have is very light. I am not going to say at this stage how I would vote as between the county council and the local authority.

I would like to vote with my eyes open. I do not want the Minister to come here and present us with a Bill giving certain powers to what is now called the local authority without first knowing who was going to be the local authority in, say, a month's time. I think that, in all fairness to the House and to the people whom the Minister met when he was down the country, the amendments to the Managerial Act should have been introduced before the bringing in of this Bill because in that event we would know to whom we were giving the powers proposed. That is all I have to say on the Bill.

I would like first of all to refer—and may I do so with all respect to Deputy Childers who opened for the Opposition—to the remarks of Deputy Briscoe. He commenced his speech by saying that this was not a ministerial Bill, that it was a departmental Bill, one which was lying on the stocks for a good many years and he then proceeded to criticise me. I have been here only a very short time, but if this Bill has been lying on the stocks for a number of years why did he not criticise my predecessors who are members of his Party? I may say that the same goes for the remarks of the last speaker.

I quite agree with Deputy Childers that this is a Committee Bill, and that it discloses nothing of policy—of the future policy of the Government. The amendments to the County Management Act will be introduced in due course when the House will have an opportunity of discussing them. Deputy Childers is in full agreement with me that this is a Committee Bill and I expect to take it as such. With regard to the various points which have been raised, we can go into them on the Committee Stage and consider amendments where necessary.

Deputy Childers asked me what I think of consolidation. I am in full agreement with consolidation, and I am very glad that we have got a considerable distance with it in regard to local government law. In my opinion, this Bill will assist in consolidating the Local Government Acts. Deputy Childers was worried about the relationship of this Bill to the County Management Acts. I do not think there would be any difficulty whatsoever in dealing with this Bill first.

Play has been made about the definition of the words "local authority" by many speakers. "Local authority" in this Bill will be construed on the present basis of reserved functions and executive functions, and when the County Management Acts are amended the words "local authority" will mean either reserved or executive functions, according as this House may decide to amend the law on management. May I refer the various speakers to Section 6 of the present Bill, which clearly sets out:—

"In this chapter of this part of the Act ‘appropriate Minister', ‘local authority', ‘major office' and ‘office' have the same meanings respectively as in Part II of the Act of 1941."

There should be no ambiguity at all as to the definition of the term "local authority".

Deputy Childers also referred to what has now become known as the McQuillan Act, and he told us that no local authority has taken any steps to implement that Act. That is not true.

I said "few".

I stand corrected. They are gradually taking advantage of the Act, and year by year they are adding to the county roads as a result of that.

Deputy Childers asked me if under Section 29 British citizens could be dispensed from taking out driving licences. The section will give the Minister power to make regulations in this matter if he considers it necessary and desirable. Reference was made also to the advantages of the signs known now as "cat's eyes". The county engineers throughout the country have annual conferences, and this is one of the matters discussed at them.

Several Deputies, including Deputy Gilbride, referred to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The reference to the Local Authorities (Works) Act in the present Bill is purely financial. As Deputies know, there is no financial provision set out in the 1949 Act, and it was merely to regularise that that this section was put in here.

Deputy Childers and others referred to the advantages of parish councils. I am in absolutely full agreement with that, but we know what happened when we tried to set them up. We found that very few of them functioned and we found that on that account local authorities were unable and actually did not desire to take advantage of their powers to provide parish halls. We think that by amending the law now and by giving powers to local authorities to give grants to parish councils, we may assist in the erection of more parish halls all over the country.

Deputy Childers also referred to derelict sites. Of course, that is not a matter for a Local Government Bill such as this. It comes in under the Housing Acts and we hope to introduce some legislation in the near future to amend the Derelict Sites Act of 1940.

Deputy Briscoe made an attack on the County Management Acts. I regret very much that Deputy Briscoe was not with the Lord Mayor and his colleagues the day I met them in the council chamber in Dublin. I must say at this stage that I appreciate very much his reasons for not being there; he sent me an explanation, one which I accept unreservedly. On that particular day the county manager and the County Management Acts were referred to and all the delegates there were unanimous that they had no objection to the county manager or the County Management Acts, but they referred to what is known as local government frustration. I think that if there was local government frustration and if Deputy Briscoe is in agreement with his colleagues, then he need not attack me. I am not responsible for local government administration except from the month of June last. Deputy Briscoe also referred to the position of the City Manager of Dublin. There is no doubt whatsoever but that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health thought in 1941, when he introduced the Act, that the age limit Order included all officers, including the city managers. This section, Section 24 of the present Bill, is removing the doubt which has since arisen. There can be no doubt whatsoever but that the Minister, my predecessor, in introducing the 1941 Act, thought that the age limit did apply to the city manager and we are merely trying to remove the doubt.

I would like to thank Deputies, and in particular Deputy Childers, for their most constructive criticism on this Second Reading of the Bill. In conclusion, may I say that it is really a Committee Bill and that I will be prepared, if I get the Second Reading this evening, to give any reasonable interval before the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, November 17th.
Top
Share